| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.
Invisibility: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
This came up in one of the Ninja playtest discussions. We have always played that when someone attacks from invisibility, the opponent is denied their dexterity bonus for the entire action. So if a rogue gets into position invisibly and then performs a full-attack action, all of the rogue's attack get sneak attack. It appears others have interpreted the above rules to mean that the opponent is only denied dexterity for the first attack of the action. I can see how the rules could be read either way.
How do others handle it in game? Is this a change from 3.X?
I doubt I will change the way I run my game, but I am curious if my group is the only ones that run it this way.
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.
Invisibility: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.This came up in one of the Ninja playtest discussions. We have always played that when someone attacks from invisibility, the opponent is denied their dexterity bonus for the entire action. So if a rogue gets into position invisibly and then performs a full-attack action, all of the rogue's attack get sneak attack. It appears others have interpreted the above rules to mean that the opponent is only denied dexterity for the first attack of the action. I can see how the rules could be read either way.
How do others handle it in game? Is this a change from 3.X?
I doubt I will change the way I run my game, but I am curious if my group is the only ones that run it this way.
The dex is only denied on the first attack and rightfully so. People adjust very quickly, even normal people, and if I were to be punched in the back of the head I would be able to be evade as normal, assuming I was still conscious. Since the attacker is visible after the first attack I don't see why he should gain any extra advantage. It would be no different than if the victim had see invisibility as a contingent spell that activated after the first attack.
If an invisible person can keep getting the bonus then why not someone who is mundanely hidden. It is the same affect of not seeing the first attack, but right afterwards the attacker being completely visible?
I treat it as a surprise round for the invisible character. In a surprise round, you are flat-footed until your initiative comes up, no matter how many times you are attacked first. So if an invisible (N)PC full-attacks, I let him attack flat-footed AC until the opponent's next initiative.
I have no idea if that's the way I'm supposed to do it, but that's the way I do it. :)
Btw, wraithstrike, I allow it for people attacking from a mundane hiding place as well. Besides the surprise-round analogy, it's just less complicated to allow them to roll all attacks that round vs. the same AC.
Flat-footed and denied dex are not the same thing, just a heads up in case you end up at another DM's table.
If an invisible person can keep getting the bonus then why not someone who is mundanely hidden. It is the same affect of not seeing the first attack, but right afterwards the attacker being completely visible?
We've always allowed a rogue to gain sneak attack on all attacks from mundane stealth as well. It just made sense to us, being what rogues are supposed to be good at.
In a surprise round you can only perform one standard action (= 1 attack in most cases).
Yeah, but if it's a surprise round and Joe NPC is ambushed, he takes standard action attacks from Amy Archer (one arrow), from Wally Wizard (one ray), and Hortense Halfling (one sling bullet). He doesn't get to take the arrow, say he is now aware of the attack, and apply his Dex bonus to AC vs. the other two attacks.
*shrug* Like I said, it might not be RAI, but that's the way I do it.
EDIT: And here's James Jacobs saying I'm wrong. :)
If an invisible person can keep getting the bonus then why not someone who is mundanely hidden. It is the same affect of not seeing the first attack, but right afterwards the attacker being completely visible?We've always allowed a rogue to gain sneak attack on all attacks from mundane stealth as well. It just made sense to us, being what rogues are supposed to be good at.
Being a rogue does not mean you get to ignore being seen unless he is supposed to be able to strike so quickly that even upon seeing him you can't really react.
It would be a nice class ability if you want to make the rogue more viable.I would take a level dip of rogue in your games just to get this ability.
If an invisible person can keep getting the bonus then why not someone who is mundanely hidden. It is the same affect of not seeing the first attack, but right afterwards the attacker being completely visible?We've always allowed a rogue to gain sneak attack on all attacks from mundane stealth as well. It just made sense to us, being what rogues are supposed to be good at.
I'm kind of curious how your rogue is using mundane stealth to get full sneak attack... I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack. (Although you're certainly free to house rule it.)
In my campaigns (and everyone I've played with), invisibility is dispelled after the first attack. Greater invisibility sort of lose it's utility otherwise, and rings of invisibility should quadruple in cost, at least.
I'm kind of curious how your rogue is using mundane stealth to get full sneak attack... I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack. (Although you're certainly free to house rule it.)
Where, specifically, has this been said? I don't see anything that calls that out under the stealth skill or the rogue class description.
I've always seen sniping and greater invisibility as ways to do it again the next round.
Being a rogue does not mean you get to ignore being seen unless he is supposed to be able to strike so quickly that even upon seeing him you can't really react.
It would be a nice class ability if you want to make the rogue more viable.
I would take a level dip of rogue in your games just to get this ability.
It certainly has kept our group's rogue viable for 15 levels of play. I'm not about to nerf him now after all this time. Most of the time he works with the fighter to get flanking anyway.
I'm kind of curious how your rogue is using mundane stealth to get full sneak attack... I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack. (Although you're certainly free to house rule it.)Where, specifically, has this been said? I don't see anything that calls that out under the stealth skill or the rogue class description.
I've always seen sniping and greater invisibility as ways to do it again the next round.
That post that was linked to James comment for one, and once you attack your position is revealed.
Once you attack you are being observed. Being out of melee range does not mean you can't be seen. If you are in melee range and you attack you are not only being observed, but you have lost cover or concealement. You can't stealth without those.
I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack.
Where, specifically, has this been said? I don't see anything that calls that out under the stealth skill or the rogue class description.
That post that was linked to James comment for one, and once you attack your position is revealed.
I understand James's ruling and do not dispute it. I'm just pointing out that it isn't specifically called out in the rules as clearly as some people think.
We've always looked at as an action that reveals a hidden character is resolved and then the character is revealed. A full-attack is a single action.
I definitely think this belongs in the FAQ.
I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack.
Where, specifically, has this been said? I don't see anything that calls that out under the stealth skill or the rogue class description.
That post that was linked to James comment for one, and once you attack your position is revealed.
I understand James's ruling and do not dispute it. I'm just pointing out that it isn't specifically called out in the rules as clearly as some people think.
We've always looked at as an action that reveals a hidden character is resolved and then the character is revealed. A full-attack is a single action.
I definitely think this belongs in the FAQ.
It has been this way since 3.5. Nothing has changed. Now if you want it to be errata'd that is a different story. A full round attack, so named only because it takes a full round, is composed of several attacks, and invis drops with an attack.
Number of Sneak AttacksProvided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example, if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter, your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same is true if you flank your foe.
Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of getting extra attacks.
Remember the earlier note about invisibility effects, however. If you're relying on invisibility to set up a sneak attack, you'll only have the effect for the first attack you make during your turn. You'll still get all your extra attacks, but only the first will be a sneak attack. You don't have this problem if you're using a greater invisibility effect.
The only difference between being invisible and mundane hiding is that one is magical and the other is not. For the most part mundanely and magically(invisible) stealthed characters follow the same rules unless a rule calls out an exception such as greater imvis.
You give your position away, and your advantage is gone. An invisible creature that attacks loses its concealment, and a non-invisible hider reveals its position by attacking. Once revealed you can't really still be hiding.
I'm kind of curious how your rogue is using mundane stealth to get full sneak attack... I suppose perhaps sniping, but that's been specifically said in the rules that it only works on the first attack. (Although you're certainly free to house rule it.)Where, specifically, has this been said? I don't see anything that calls that out under the stealth skill or the rogue class description.
I've always seen sniping and greater invisibility as ways to do it again the next round.
You are correct, it doesn't explicitly say it, but I was extrapolating from the Sniping rule (under the Stealth skill):
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
The implication being, of course, if you don't make your check, you are visible. Thus, if you attack, you are automatically visible, unless you make your Stealth check at a -20.
Number of Sneak Attacks
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.
Number of Sneak Attacks
It is from 3.5 which is where pathfinder came from. Unless otherwise stated they use the same rules. Rule of the game link
The Rules of the games articles were made by the people that designed the game. Some of our devs such as Jason and James used to work on that game also. They basically go and explain RAI, and answer a lot of confusing questions in the articles.
It is from 3.5 which is where pathfinder came from. Unless otherwise stated they use the same rules. Rule of the game link
The Rules of the games articles were made by the people that designed the game. Some of our devs such as Jason and James used to work on that game also. They basically go and explain RAI, and answer a lot of confusing questions in the articles.
I didn't realize there was a set of web articles called "Rules of the Game". I took it to mean you were quoting someplace in the rule book (which contains the actual rules of the game) that I overlooked.
While that ruling is correct (as James verified) I wouldn't exactly say it is correct to assume rules in Pathfinder are the same as 3.5 unless stated. They don't call out where they intentionally left out rules. While I still raid 3.5 for monsters and other useful bits, the rules of play should come straight from a Pathfinder book or FAQ.
|
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.
Number of Sneak Attacks
It is from 3.5 which is where pathfinder came from. Unless otherwise stated they use the same rules. Rule of the game link
The Rules of the games articles were made by the people that designed the game. Some of our devs such as Jason and James used to work on that game also. They basically go and explain RAI, and answer a lot of confusing questions in the articles.
Ahhh, the old 3.5 D&D website... I have many fond memories of that site. Back from when WotC seemed to understand the internet. I hope Paizo's blog/ web resources are eventually as useful as that site was.
It is from 3.5 which is where pathfinder came from. Unless otherwise stated they use the same rules. Rule of the game link
The Rules of the games articles were made by the people that designed the game. Some of our devs such as Jason and James used to work on that game also. They basically go and explain RAI, and answer a lot of confusing questions in the articles.
I didn't realize there was a set of web articles called "Rules of the Game". I took it to mean you were quoting someplace in the rule book (which contains the actual rules of the game) that I overlooked.
While that ruling is correct (as James verified) I wouldn't exactly say it is correct to assume rules in Pathfinder are the same as 3.5 unless stated. They don't call out where they intentionally left out rules. While I still raid 3.5 for monsters and other useful bits, the rules of play should come straight from a Pathfinder book or FAQ.
At least 90% of all the rules work the same, not including class and specific spell changes which means that unless you can provide evidence of verbage that changed a rule from 3.5 to PF the ruling is still the same.
Example of changed verbage is that sneak attack now works on undead.
The game is basically the same and it had to be to allow for backward compatibility which was main selling point for many of us.
Edit:If the words are basically the same then the intent is basically the same. You can't go saying they kept the same words, but changed the intent, and by keeping the same words I mean the words have to change enough to show actual intent not something along the lines of replacing "like" for "such as", since the two are close enough to switch out in most cases.
Isn't it part of Pathfinder rules that if a ruling is unclear, one should roll back to 3.5 rules?
While that ruling is correct (as James verified) I wouldn't exactly say it is correct to assume rules in Pathfinder are the same as 3.5 unless stated. They don't call out where they intentionally left out rules. While I still raid 3.5 for monsters and other useful bits, the rules of play should come straight from a Pathfinder book or FAQ.
It is not actually a rule but an unofficial understanding, backwards compatibility and all. :)
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.
I can't remember where exactly this rule is but it make sense since this talent rogue exist :
Stealthy Sniper (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses the Stealth skill to snipe, she only suffers a –10 penalty on the Stealth check, instead of –20. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.I can't remember where exactly this rule is but it make sense since this talent rogue exist :
Stealthy Sniper (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses the Stealth skill to snipe, she only suffers a –10 penalty on the Stealth check, instead of –20. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
I am not understanding your post.
|
|
Isn't it part of Pathfinder rules that if a ruling is unclear, one should roll back to 3.5 rules?
While that ruling is correct (as James verified) I wouldn't exactly say it is correct to assume rules in Pathfinder are the same as 3.5 unless stated. They don't call out where they intentionally left out rules. While I still raid 3.5 for monsters and other useful bits, the rules of play should come straight from a Pathfinder book or FAQ.
It's common and an easy way to work it. I've seen people roll clear back to second edition for stuff that was unclear...
Personally, I just wing it based on what's at hand or use whatever the common understanding of a rule is (generally from 3.5). I'm way too lazy to go digging through old FAQs and Rules of the Game articles to interpret rules. If the
If the
You got cut off. :)
Stealthy Sniper (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses the Stealth skill to snipe, she only suffers a –10 penalty on the Stealth check, instead of –20. Source: Advanced Player's GuideI am not understanding your post.
Well I can't find this rule anywhere in the pathfinder rulebooks : "Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location."
But in the APG there's the Stealthy Sniper rogue talent who said your Stealth check suffers only a -10 penalty instead of a -20, so I extrapolate that the stealth check to snipe (without the Stealthy Sniper talent) is -20 even if it is not in any rulebooks... ;)
So you can fire your bow, make a -20 stealth check, if it succeed you still apply sneak attack on your second attack etc.
Edit : Oh... Finally find sniping under Stealth Skill, sorry... And since you have to be 10 feet from the target if you are in melee you can't make a check... So you are visible right after the first attack and then can't use sneak attack...
If you can sneak attack with all your attacks in the same round there's no need to the sniping rule... :)
Stealthy Sniper (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses the Stealth skill to snipe, she only suffers a –10 penalty on the Stealth check, instead of –20. Source: Advanced Player's GuideI am not understanding your post.Well I can't find this rule anywhere in the pathfinder rulebooks : "Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location."
But in the APG there's the Stealthy Sniper rogue talent who said your Stealth check suffers only a -10 penalty instead of a -20, so I extrapolate that the stealth check to snipe (without the Stealthy Sniper talent) is -20 even if it is not in any rulebooks... ;)
So you can fire your bow, make a -20 stealth check, if it succeed you still apply sneak attack on your second attack etc.
Edit : Oh... Finally find sniping under Stealth Skill, sorry... And since you have to be 10 feet from the target if you are in melee you can't make a check... So you are visible right after the first attack and then can't use sneak attack...
If you can sneak attack with all your attacks in the same round there's no need to the sniping rule... :)
Sure thing. In the next round, since its a move action to use Stealth.
Edit:you kind of ninja'd me with your own edit.
Stealthy Sniper (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses the Stealth skill to snipe, she only suffers a –10 penalty on the Stealth check, instead of –20. Source: Advanced Player's GuideI am not understanding your post.Well I can't find this rule anywhere in the pathfinder rulebooks : "Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location."
But in the APG there's the Stealthy Sniper rogue talent who said your Stealth check suffers only a -10 penalty instead of a -20, so I extrapolate that the stealth check to snipe (without the Stealthy Sniper talent) is -20 even if it is not in any rulebooks... ;)
So you can fire your bow, make a -20 stealth check, if it succeed you still apply sneak attack on your second attack etc.
Edit : Oh... Finally find sniping under Stealth Skill, sorry... And since you have to be 10 feet from the target if you are in melee you can't make a check... So you are visible right after the first attack and then can't use sneak attack...
If you can sneak attack with all your attacks in the same round there's no need to the sniping rule... :)
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Immediately stealth does not make it into a free action. It means you take your attack and you have to stealth right then. Since stealthing is a move action or can be combines with one that gives you one shot, not a free stealth action. The reason for the penalty is because you have caused the opponent to look in your direction so you have to make a really good hide check to not be noticed.
Immediately stealth does not make it into a free action. It means you take your attack and you have to stealth right then. Since stealthing is a move action or can be combines with one that gives you one shot, not a free stealth action. The reason for the penalty is because you have caused the opponent to look in your direction so you have to make a really good hide check to not be noticed.
Oh right forgot about this too... You're right, so you can't full attack and stealth... Have to remember that, thanks :)
You'll have to be more specific on where you found that. When I looked under rogue (where sneak attack is defined) and combat (where the effects of invisibility are talked about) I couldn't find that passage. Searching the online PRD I couldn't find that reference either.
Number of Sneak Attacks
Furthermore you only gain the benefits of an affect as long as it is active. Once you attack the affect(invisibility) ends. If you are mundanely hidden and you attack you are revealed. The text supports that also.
What about a rogue with two-weapon fighting? Its conceivable to think they would be using both weapons at once.
It does not change anything. Using two weapons does not mean your invisibility last any longer than someone holding two weapons. You attack, and you are no longer hidden. The weapon does not matter. If you are not hidden the target is not denied dex. If the target is not denied dex then you don't get sneak attack. A rogue is not a primary damage dealer anyway. In order for him to put the hurt down constantly he needs to get a competent flanking buddy or learn to be a competent flanker.
This didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking about using two weapons, but two weapons at the same time. Maybe it's just thematic, but the rogue is still invisible during the "second" attackWhat about a rogue with two-weapon fighting? Its conceivable to think they would be using both weapons at once.It does not change anything. Using two weapons does not mean your invisibility last any longer than someone holding two weapons. You attack, and you are no longer hidden. The weapon does not matter. If you are not hidden the target is not denied dex. If the target is not denied dex then you don't get sneak attack. A rogue is not a primary damage dealer anyway. In order for him to put the hurt down constantly he needs to get a competent flanking buddy or learn to be a competent flanker.
You can't make two attacks at once by the rules. Now if a DM were to allow it then it is up to him about how to resolve it since he decided to make up his own rules.
If there were an ability that did that it would depend on whether the attack was treated like a volley similar to 3rd edition manyshot or if I had to make a separate attack roll for each attack.
There was a feat in 3.5 which allowed a TWF to attack once with both weapons at the same time. I had a tempest who would Spring Attack, stab with both swords, and move away. Can't remember what it was called, but I'm sure someone here does. Probably in Complete Warrior.
There was a feat in 3.5 which allowed a TWF to attack once with both weapons at the same time. I had a tempest who would Spring Attack, stab with both swords, and move away. Can't remember what it was called, but I'm sure someone here does. Probably in Complete Warrior.
Dual Strike, it is from Complete Adventurer
There was a feat in 3.5 which allowed a TWF to attack once with both weapons at the same time. I had a tempest who would Spring Attack, stab with both swords, and move away. Can't remember what it was called, but I'm sure someone here does. Probably in Complete Warrior.Dual Strike, it is from Complete Adventurer
That's it; thanks. :)